Talk:Galilean Electrodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Students beware 2 Minor cleanup 3 Why this article is not neutral, or the bias is more interesting than the article. 4 Minor cleanup 2

[edit] Students beware

I had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. This article concerns a controversial topic which mainstream scientists regard as pseudoscience, but which has a small pool of devoted adherents, some of whom have edited this article. Given this, at least some future versions are likely to present slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites, which may attempt to misrepresent this topic as a legitimate subject of research in physics, which it is not.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor cleanup

Cleaned up the non-NPOV scare quotes and belaboring of the fringe element. The criticism is quite well clear without going on endlessly about it. Previous version contained false assumption that a referee pool would necessarily be limited to rejectors of mainstream science.---User:Kasyapa

[edit] Why this article is not neutral, or the bias is more interesting than the article.

The fact that the founder of the journal was an electrical engineer “by training” is no more relevant that the fact that Newton wrote on theology and alchemy, or Einstein was a pacifist, but is used in ad hominem fashion to follow, or not follow logically, that “almost all” physicists consider him to be dealing in “fringe science at best” since he rejected special relativity. Since the whole point of the journal is criticism of SR, along with GR, the Big Bang, and other mainstream theory, one would expect it would be a venue for those other than the “almost all” physicists to discuss said theories. Is the author suggesting that no question or dissent of said theories be allowed, or that such questions or dissent is in itself “fringe science”? Is this science?

Under the heading “The journal” the author relays what is on the website, i.e. “Galilean Electrodynamics is devoted to publishing high quality scientific papers, refereed by professional scientists, that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines.” Okay so far, but then adds “As this blurb suggests, articles [in GE] are considered part of fringe science”. Considered by who? Surly not one of the not “almost all” physicists? Perhaps if the author had read further on the website he would have found, “Though the main purpose of the journal is to publish papers contesting orthodoxy in physics, it will also publish papers responding in defense of orthodoxy. We invite such response because our ultimate purpose here is to find the truth.” So are articles in defense of the accuracy of SR [GR, BB, etc] fringe science?

There is certainly dispute over whether the publication is a scientific journal or not; the dispute is evidenced by the article itself. Evidence such as the fact that the founder was an electrical engineer; what are the occupations of those responsible for the journal Nature at Nature Publishing Group? And gee what a surprise that a journal devoted to criticism of “almost all” physicists’ beliefs would engender dispute! Would that be the source of the [unidentified] critics’ allegations that incorrect claims have appeared in the journal? Wouldn’t it be natural for “almost all” physicists to claim that the material in the journal was incorrect? As far as “involved” authors claiming publication in the journal amounted to acceptance by the scientific mainstream, wouldn’t it be much much more likely that publication in the journal [excepting for defense of SR, GR, BB, etc.] would be an outright demonstration that the work was NOT accepted by the scientific mainstream? I mean really … DUH!

And then “See also” Fringe Science & Pseudoscience; apparently we’re back to the idea that no questions or dissents with current mainstream physics theories are allowed, except you must be a crank.

One must wonder what the author of this article is afraid of. If this journal, well out of the mainstream and probably hardly read exhibits ideas and thoughts which are not the everyday belief of “almost all” physicists, well then so what? Are mainstream ideas cast in stone? Is all uncertainty passé? Not everyone thinks so.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Albert Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921

This article should remain in dispute until some unbiased person takes it on. DasV 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute what you want. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to extreme minority viewpoints. In fact, WP:NPOV requires that we do not. -- SCZenz 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not the "minority viewpoint" that is in dispute. It is the lack of accuracy and obvious bias of the article that is the issue. DasV 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Galilean Electrodynamics is not a scientific journal. It is not edited by qualified physicists, and it is not reviewed by qualified physicists. These are the most important facts on the subject. -- SCZenz 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts because they are critical of mainstream physics. Of course. DasV 17:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Galilean electrodynamics not being a scientific journal follows from the fact that its editors and reviewers aren't qualified physicists. They are not qualified physicists because they aren't faculty in the physics department of a major university or senior researchers at a laboratory; thus there is no reason to believe they actually understand mainstream physics (and they can't critique it if they don't). In fact, the content of the journal gives me strong reason to believe the don't; the amount of modern research that must be totally ignored to argue that relativity and other fundamental theories are wrong is simply staggering. (To give one small example I'm personally familiar with, particle accelerators assume relativity in their magnetic field strengths and magnet frequencies; if it were wrong, they simply wouldn't work and we wouldn't see anything at all in our detectors.) Unfortunately, most lay people aren't familiar with the details of the past century of physics research, so if this article doesn't make the situation clear then they might be misled. -- SCZenz 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh ... You say its not a scientific journal becuase it's not edited by qualified physicists, and then to support that statement you invent your own personal definition of a "qualified physicist", that strangely doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether one has qualifications in physics! The first name on the editorial list is listed as Professor of Physics Emeritus UConn., and he's supposed to have been there for 32 years. But you've constructed an argument by which he doesn't count as a qualified physicist, but you as a lab researcher, do. And therefore it's not a scientific journal? Jeez, talk about selecting your data to fit your conclusions! ErkDemon 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - if relatvitiy is so perfect where our those precious gravity waves that we spent $600 million to find (care of LIGO)?? I really dig Einstein and I think he was mostly correct but if our gravity wave detectors can't see any sources after looking for 10 years and 2/3 the way across our galaxy (when theorists who wrote papers prior to funding this project proclaimed we would find many sources with the current detector resolution), why should we spend another $600 million to look to the end of the universe? I hate to suggest it as a "non-qualified" physicist, but could the equations/speculation actually be wrong?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.234.125 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your position on the quality of the publication, rather I believe there are better ways to express GE's departure from mainstream ideas without digressing from neutrality. The content of the article is fallacious and dismissive without substantiation. There are mainstream scientists exploring such critical material as GE purports to solicit, however it is exactly my point that in general few scientists would wish to associate themselves with GE because it is tantamount to an admission one cannot be published in more reputable journals.

(see “Evicting Einstein http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/26mar_einstein.htm for example)

It is certainly appropriate to say that their level of review does not meet the criteria of those of well thought of scientific journals, if you know that to be true. It is germane to report that there is no known record of any material critical of SR, GR, BB, etc. published in GE that has overturned or even added to the mainstream body of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with stating that GE is predominantly an improvised platform for those who wish to advance their own ideas which are critical of mainstream scientific theory without being subjected to the strict critical examination by mainstream scientists routinely encountered in highly regarded scientific journals.

The problem with non-neutrality is that it lends credence to those who decry prejudice in the field. A good example is Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision, which came out in 1950. Velikovsky, a historian, did a remarkable job of linking up a myriad of ancient historical events in such a way as to advance his idea of collisions or near collisions between the Earth, Venus, and Mars in ancient human but cosmologically recent times. In the main his theory was naïve and filled with many holes, but rather than deal with the merits of the theory the academic community effectively banned the sale of the book by blackmailing publishers by threatening not to buy their textbooks if they undertook or marketed Velikovsky’s. Of course this backfired; the book was published nevertheless, and became a best seller. Worse some years later several predictions he made about Venus were discovered to true, and much information about the planet had to be revised. This became known as the “Velikovsky Affair” and impugned the reputations of many in the academic world as being closed minded, and censuring anyone who disagreed with them.

I believe it is much better to report the strictly neutral truth. I do not see how anything published by such as GE can detract from the scientific community, and anything other than neutrality can damage the reputation of Wikipedia. IMHO. DasV 19:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem, perhaps in part because it's hardly more than a stub without proper references. As the problem is not just NPOV I replaced the tag by a more appropriate tag and inserted pointers to some problematic sentences. Harald88 08:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DasV, Wikipedia is not the place for "strictly neutral truth". As most people involved with these "NPOV" disputes are acutely aware of, NPOV is very much a misnomer. In fact, a more appropriate acronym would be "MPOV", for Mainstream Point Of View. All articles having any relationship to science must be written from the non-neutral point of view that all non-mainstream or non-collectivist thought is inherently wrong (quite unscientific). Simply look for Wikipedia articles about non-mainstream scientific inquiry and you will find heated arguments relating to NPOV. What is often allowed, in the end as "NPOV" is much more qualitatively biased, but in the other direction. And don't worry about the reputation of Wikipedia; people are quickly learning that while Wikipedia is great for finding names, dates and minor trivia, it is an extremely poor source for an accurate portrayal of anything controversial.209.251.130.178 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is probably as good a source as any encyclopedia ... such as Britannica ... precisely because it is open to discussion, and the discussion is documented for all to see, as are the sources. Compare today's and a 10 year old Britannica and see what has changed between then and now with respect to any number of subjects. Such is the price for paying "authority" contributers ... many of whom impart their own bias. Bias is not NPOV and because it is certainly MPOV so much the worse for civilization. "It's bad because [famous authority] said so!" is no way to pen articles. DasV 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor cleanup 2

I tried to make the article a bit more neutral by merely stating facts rather than the mud slinging (ad hominem attacks) mentioned above. Still needs some work.

A good job I think ... it is certainly improved. DasV 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)